The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1887-07-27
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Substance of an Important De-
cigion Rendered by the
Commission.
The Payment or Commissions by Con.
Meeting Lines Declared to BE
Not Obligatory.
Washington telegram

on Wednesday. The most important
was the one in relation to the payment
of commiss ons by one road to the
agents of another and connecting road
for sales of through tickets. 4 he
points in dispute grew out of the
commissions and anti-commissions
fight between the seaboard trunk
lines and some of their
Western connections. The following
three cases were disposed of in the one
opinion: The Chicago and Alton Com
pany against the Pennsylvania Com
pany, the same against the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company, and the Chi
cago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad
Company against the New York Cen
trail and Hudson River Railroad Com
pany. The following 81 nopsis coniai..
the more important points of the opip.
ion, which Is very long:
The complaints in these cases were founded
upon the third section of the act to regulat,
ton by the defendant companies IN refL sing
certain facilities for receiving. forwarding, and
delivering passengers TO coinplainants' lines.
consisting OF through or coupon tickets which
being afforded TO other and competit. We compa-
mics, give, the compliments allege, undue and
unreasonable preference to those companies
The material facts found by the commission are
recited at length in the opinion. They show
that for several years prior to the time
when the act t. regulats commerce took
effect, sui stantlaly all the railroad
panies OF the country, inc uding the COM
plainants and defendants. paid commissions
The defendant companies and some others for
about two years have made earnest Efforts TO
abate the practice OF paying commissions
About month before the act to regulate com
merce became operative the defendant COM
panies took steps t. procure agreements With
their connecting companies to abolish the coui-
mission business altogether. With this end in
view they sent printed circulars about
March 10 last to their connecting compan es
expressing their Willingness to continue TO act
agents in the sale of through tickets
and stat ne the nature OF the agreement
The circular Of the defendant companies
contained a condition prohibiting the pay
ment OF commissions by other companies
to its agents The complainant companies re-
fused to enter into the agreement proposed
On account OF their refusal the defendants
after April last, refused to sell through tick
cts over the complainants' roads from Chicago
and St Louis to Kansas City, and still refuse
solely for those reasons On these facts the
compliments aver that the defendants refuse
TO afford them reasonable, proper, and equal
facilities for receiving, forwarding, and deliv-
erins passengers, ana give undue preference TO
competing roads in contravention of the pro-
visions OF the act TO regulate commerce.
The def, ndants deny tnat they have violated
the provisions OF the act, and claim that they
have the exclusive right TO control their agents,
to fix the amount OF their compensation, and TO
pay themse elves that the payment of commits
their agents and often leads TO discriminate
to passengers tor roads paying large commits
sions by division of commission between the
agent and the passenger; that commissions
consume a considerable percentage OF the rev.
enue from the sale OF through tickets that
without commss ions all connecting roads stand
on a basis Of equality, and passengers select
their own routes unintluenced by agents having
an interest in the form of commissions in per-
suading them to choose some particular route
The ofenses OF which the commission has
cognizance are anything done omitted 70 be
done in contraventon OF the provisions of the
act TO regulate commerce. Railroad corpora
tions in the States the creations of the State
Governments, and their powers and duties are
defined by their charters or by general laws
The act does not make il the duty OF State rail-
roads to organize and operate through lines Of
transportation consisting of separate roads
owned by different companies. The organiza-
ton OF such lines is left under the act to the
voluntary action of railroad companies as il ex-
listed previously. The law in this instance does
not in terms require one railroad company to
sell through tickets over the road of another rail
road company In the absence OF statutory
thority one railroad company can only sell
tickets and check baggage over the road of an
other railroad company by agreement. By
agreement between two companies through
tickets, very properly, are sold and used over
connecting lines as II convenience of passenger
traffic and an inducement for patronage. Such
tickets very evidently are n great convenience
to travellers and perhaps to connecting roads
but they are part of the voluntary arrange
ments for business purposes, like joint tariffs,
interchange of cars and common use of depots
1t being, therefore, under our statute "a matter
of mutual agreement whether coupon or
through tickets shall be sold by railroad COM
pany over roads of some other companies
IL follows that the form Of such tickets
and the manner of their sale are also matters
of agreement by the comp anies intero sted II
companies can agree upon their tariffs the
form of their tickets, and how they shall be
sold, they have the right To do So and by such
agreement become interstate carriers; but il
they cannot agree the act does not undertake
to coerce them to do business together upon
terms that may be Justly Objectionable or in-
furious. Through tickets not Indispensable
for these purposes but assuming, for the sake
OF argument, that they may be deemed "facili-
ties" Tor the receiving, orwardng and deliver
ing OF passengers to connecting lines carriers
are only required to afford reasonable, proper
and equal facilities. They are not required 70
afford special unreasonable, improper, or un-
equal facilities.
This presents the question whether the pay
ment of commissions is in itself, as Incl
dental TO the enjoyment of, facility, reason
able and proper within the puryiew of the
statute. The facility of through tickets is
equally offered to all ami may be enjoyed
the tickets should charge commission it
would doubtless be regarded as an imposition,
and, therefore, unreasonable and improper
These commissions are gratuities TO induce
special efforts for the company paying them
II the statute do not give one company au-
thorty to subsidize the agents of another COM
pany, and IL the practice is injurious in its
effects, 1T certainly cannot be reasonable and
proper.
ordinates the defendant companies have forbid
den their agents To receive commissions from
other companies, and directed them not TO sell
over roads of companies that refuse TO recog-
niZe this cooperative authority but insist on
substituting the agents In these d rections the
defendants have not transcribed their reason
able rights. One person or corporation has no
right to interfere with the emp Dyes of another
and the statute does not disturb this old and
sound principle.
The defendants might rest upon their right to
control the official conduct OF their own agents,
but they 60 further aad show by evidence the
practical effects Of commissions, and that their
natural and usual tendencies are TO variety Of
abuses.
The opinion then quotes the testi-
mory of an officer of the Pennsylvania
Railroad and others to the effect that
commissions were used to corrupt
agents to sell through tickets over the
commission-paying lines in preference
to others; that these commissions,
amounting in the average to % per
cent. of the value of the tickets, were
frequently divided with the purchaser,
thereby making q discrimination in
rates in favor of the compln which
paid the commission, and that agents
sometimes received more money from
other companies in this way than they
| Ax<. IL.